DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: image acquisition unit, information acquisition unit, extraction unit, determination unit, control unit and classification unit in claims 1 and 6-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aragaki (10,860,835).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 14 Aragaki discloses,
A cell image processing system, method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium
comprising:
An image acquisition unit configured to acquire a cell image of a sample including a plurality of cells as a subject (note col. 4 lines 36-41, image acquisition device (image acquisition unit) that acquires a cell image by capturing an image of a cell cluster composed of a plurality of cells);
A cell region extraction unit configured to extract a plurality of cell regions respectively corresponding to cells from the cell image (note col. 15 lines 41-49, region of each of the plurality of cells C constituting the cell cluster can be extracted);
cell information acquisition unit configured to acquire characteristic information including morphological information about each of the cell regions and pixel information about each of the cell regions (note col. 15 lines 55- col. 16 lines 4, the morphology of the cell region, and the center position of the cell region);
A representative cell determination unit configured to determine a representative cell region from among the plurality of extracted cell regions based on at least one type of information constituting the characteristic information (note col. 9 lines 40-50, region formation unit 39 forms a cell region); and
A display control unit configured to cause a display unit to display image information about a cell region corresponding to the representative cell, positional information corresponding to the representative cell, and characteristic information about a cell region corresponding to the representative cell (note col. 11 lines 55-67, displayed).
Regarding claim 2 Aragaki discloses,
Wherein the positional information includes at least one of a group of contour coordinates indicating a boundary between cell regions in the cell image, and coordinates indicating a position of center of gravity of a cell region in the cell image (note col. 5 lines 50-55, information about a group of coordinates of potential cell positions).
Regarding claim 3 Aragaki discloses,
Wherein the morphological information about each of the cell regions includes at least one of an area of the cell region, a diameter of the cell region, a circularity of the cell region, and a perimeter of the cell region (note col. 15 lines 55- col. 16 lines 4, the morphology of the cell region, and the center position of the cell region).
Regarding claim 4 Aragaki discloses,
Wherein the pixel information about each of the cell regions includes at least one of an average value of pixel values in the cell region, an integrated value of pixel values in the cell region, and a standard deviation of pixel values in the cell region (note col. 5 lines 22-33 pixel values in the cell region cited).
Regarding claim 5 Aragaki discloses,
Wherein the cell image includes at least one of a fluorescence image, a bright-field image, and a phase contrast image (note col. 4 lines 42-48, includes fluorescence image)
Regarding claims 10 Aragaki discloses,
A classification unit configured to classify a cell data group constituting the cell image into a plurality of clusters, wherein the representative cell determination unit determines the representative cell region in each of the plurality of clusters (note col. 12 lines 27-35, clusters).
Regarding claims 12 Aragaki discloses,
Wherein the display control unit controls the display unit to display image information about a cell region corresponding to the representative cell and a position of the representative cell region in the cell image in an associated manner (note col. 11 lines 55-67, displayed).
Related Prior Art
Ikuyama (10,591,402) An image acquisition unit (note fig. 3, block 211) configured to acquire a cell image of a sample including a plurality of cells as a subject (note col. 8 lines 24-32, acquire image occupied by cells).
Zhang et al (12,561,993) cell information acquisition unit configured to acquire characteristic information including morphological information about each of the cell regions and pixel information about each of the cell regions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for dependent claim 6. Prior art could not be found for the features wherein the representative cell determination unit extracts a plurality of subsets from a data group formed of the characteristic information about the plurality of cell regions and determines the representative cell region from each of the plurality of subsets. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art. Claims 7-9 depend on claim 6. Therefore are also objected.
Regarding claim 11, prior art could not be found for the features wherein, in a case where any one of image information about a cell region corresponding to the representative cell, positional information corresponding to the representative cell region, and characteristic information about a cell region corresponding to the representative cell is selected, the display control unit controls the display unit to display information other than the selected information together with the selected information in synchronization and in a highlighted manner. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
G.D.
June 26, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights